Am Samstag, 3. April 2004 03:54 schrieb David Brownell:
> >We've talked about this before on the mailing lists... we've never
> > come up with a good solution.
>
> It seems to me that the problem screams for a semaphore. The question
> is just which semaphore.
> >>>
> >>>That,
We've talked about this before on the mailing lists... we've never come
up with a good solution.
It seems to me that the problem screams for a semaphore. The question is
just which semaphore.
That, and coming up with reasonable semantics to impose on every driver.
Let's see what usage fits well wit
On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 08:55:50PM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 1. April 2004 18:45 schrieb Matthew Dharm:
> > On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 10:36:04AM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > > Am Donnerstag, 1. April 2004 02:46 schrieb Matthew Dharm:
> > > > On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 12:44:41AM +0
Am Donnerstag, 1. April 2004 18:45 schrieb Matthew Dharm:
> On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 10:36:04AM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, 1. April 2004 02:46 schrieb Matthew Dharm:
> > > On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 12:44:41AM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > > > Am Mittwoch, 31. März 2004 22:42 schr
On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 10:36:04AM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 1. April 2004 02:46 schrieb Matthew Dharm:
> > On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 12:44:41AM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > > Am Mittwoch, 31. März 2004 22:42 schrieb Matthew Dharm:
> > > > On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 11:17:04AM +010
Am Donnerstag, 1. April 2004 02:46 schrieb Matthew Dharm:
> On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 12:44:41AM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, 31. März 2004 22:42 schrieb Matthew Dharm:
> > > On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 11:17:04AM +0100, Richard Curnow wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 29 Mar, 2004 at 12:22pm, Matth
On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 12:44:41AM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 31. März 2004 22:42 schrieb Matthew Dharm:
> > On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 11:17:04AM +0100, Richard Curnow wrote:
> > > On Mon, 29 Mar, 2004 at 12:22pm, Matthew Dharm wrote:
> > > > I've seen some buggy devices act this way.
Am Mittwoch, 31. März 2004 22:42 schrieb Matthew Dharm:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 11:17:04AM +0100, Richard Curnow wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Mar, 2004 at 12:22pm, Matthew Dharm wrote:
> > > I've seen some buggy devices act this way.
> > >
> > > They can't handle the control requests interspersed betwee
On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 11:17:04AM +0100, Richard Curnow wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Mar, 2004 at 12:22pm, Matthew Dharm wrote:
> > I've seen some buggy devices act this way.
> >
> > They can't handle the control requests interspersed between
> > usb-storage transaction requests. It's a spec violation.
>
Hi Matthew,
Thanks for your reply.
On Mon, 29 Mar, 2004 at 12:22pm, Matthew Dharm wrote:
> I've seen some buggy devices act this way.
>
> They can't handle the control requests interspersed between
> usb-storage transaction requests. It's a spec violation.
So any platform/version combinations
I've seen some buggy devices act this way.
They can't handle the control requests interspersed between usb-storage
transaction requests. It's a spec violation.
Matt
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 02:42:36PM +0100, Richard Curnow wrote:
> We've found some kind of deadlock between these 2 subsystems.
>
We've found some kind of deadlock between these 2 subsystems.
To provoke it:
0. mount -t usbdevfs none /proc/bus/usb
1. plug a USB2 flash drive into a USB1.1 port. The device we're using
looks like this:
T: Bus=01 Lev=01 Prnt=01 Port=01 Cnt=01 Dev#= 2 Spd=12 MxCh= 0
D: Ver= 2.00 Cls=00(>
12 matches
Mail list logo
